Current Events > Someone explain why we don't need police anymore

(+) Yeah! (+)

I thought all the defund and dismantle talk online were memes, but apparently I'm wrong about that. What is the idea behind getting rid the police entirely? I haven't been following that idea.

---

Because all of these people posting on GameFAQs from their mom's basement believe that they have enough experience from playing Call of Duty and GTA to protect themselves in every situation.

---

I dont get it either. Its like we are a country full of anarchist. I want peace.

---

The idea behind defunding police is using that money to build up communities instead of tear them down.

---

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

---

The UN patrolling USA is an option

---

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

yes
NO ONE is saying to abolish the police
no one

---

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

Not really what "defund" implies so people having the incorrect idea shouldn't be surprising.

---

Because the NRA is looking for ways to increase gun sales by 3,000%.

---

I'm afraid to make posts like these because of being labeled a racist and/or cop apologist.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

I'm afraid to make posts like these because of being labeled a racist and/or cop apologist.

you should probably never be afraid of the lunatics on the current events board of www.gamefaqs.gamespot.com calling you names
their initial impulse for everything is to just label so just lean into it

---

Well there's a couple ideas out there

I think the most unrealistic are the ones who think we can fund education, health care, and a ubi/jobs guarantee and then police aren't necessarily (this is not a stance based on reality)

Another more realistic thoght process is that most of what police do should and could be handled by bureaucrats without guns

I mean idk I just think people in general are stupid and our opinions will change soon enough. As soon as some white lady gets murdered these anti-police sentiments will die down.

---

Balrog0 posted...

I mean idk I just think people in general are stupid and our opinions will change soon enough. As soon as some white lady gets murdered these anti-police sentiments will die down.

I think you mean black lady??

The Trent posted...

you should probably never be afraid of the lunatics on the current events board of www.gamefaqs.gamespot.com calling you names
their initial impulse for everything is to just label so just lean into it

It isn't so much the labeling that has me cautious but the disregard that comes with it. It feels way too easy on this board to forfeit your right to an opinion.

Like I am constantly rolling through my brain how someone could take something said with perfectly neutral intentions and twist it to say I'm covering up for a desire to be bigoted and oppressive. I'm using the guise of "objectivity" to adhere to thinking that society must change.

---

Communities can police themselves.

---

AlephZero posted...

Communities can police themselves.

i bet this would work smashingly in chicago!

---

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

---

AlephZero posted...

Communities can police themselves.

Isn't that what street justice is...? Gangs not snitching to the po-po so they can deal with problems in-house and "their way"?

---

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

The Trent posted...

yes
NO ONE is saying to abolish the police
no one

"We don't want no more police."

What did she mean by this?

---

AlephZero posted...

"We don't want no more police."

What did she mean by this?

It's a double negative. It means she DOES want MORE police.

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

Actually, no, there are articles out there about how society needs to evolve past the concept of a law enforcement body and into something more civil.

Personally I think it's impossible. If you got rid of the police, eventually whatever you replace it with will evolve back into the police simply due to increasing need for things that the police did that your replacement can't (and that's a best case scenario; worst case would be you get something far worse due to privatization or lack of any sort of enforcement for the enforcers...which I guess is a problem right now but at least those checks are in place, even if they don't do any good in curtailing bad behavior).

---

Maybe we should stop giving undertrained cops access to military weapons.

---

Read this thread and maybe you guys might understand what abolishing the police means, it's not what you think.
https://twitter.com/TravelingNun/status/1268510966116954114

Anyone who thinks abolishing the police is a good idea needs their head checked

---

The only people who believe this are privileged morons, they think just because theyve been fortunate enough to have never been put in a situation where they needed law enforcement that they never will.

There actually is an idea out there right now that the police should be abolished entirely, and the money that was spent on them should go to mental health institutions, training, housing, and education for disadvantaged people. A police like presence would remain for as long as needed while society would transition into it's new structure.

The community would police itself, and mental health professionals would resolve disputes, iirc.

https://www.facebook.com/MPD150/

---

Perascamin posted...

There actually is an idea out there right now that the police should be abolished entirely, and the money that was spent on them should go to mental health institutions, training, housing, and education for disadvantaged people. A police like presence would remain for as long as needed while society would transition into it's new structure.

The community would police itself, and mental health professionals would resolve disputes, iirc.

https://www.facebook.com/MPD150/

fucking dreamworld people
who thinks this shit has any validity in 2020 real world america at all
ridiculousness

---

Just to throw out some unconnected thoughts relating to the topic:

Of course we need some policing, society is not so advanced we can't have any. But these systemic issues are loud and clear right now.

The chances of them responding to a crisis in time are low. Usually people get robbed, get murdered whatever, then they come. Police aren't getting your stuff back even if someone does burglarize your house, so what's the difference? People want to mess with you, they're going to mess with you. The cops can't do much more than take down a report afterward.
Most of their work is fining some local community over trivial stuff
In black communities, the police have basically created an elementary school to prison pipeline instead of enhancing these communities.
The use of force issue we can see on display right now. They are trained in tactics that resemble a very angry, rough militia, trained to rough up and intimidate our citizens.
How do we solve this problem? Police departments are expanding while things like hospitals close and schools struggle.
More cops with fancier weapons costs a lot of money and will not help. Let's spend less money on cops and more money on public health, public housing, public education, mental health services, addiction services, etc. so that there are fewer desperate people struggling to get by in our cities.

---

Balrog0 posted...

As soon as some white lady gets murdered these anti-police sentiments will die down.

Police are killing people of all colors, it's not about race -- black vs white -- and if you think it is, you've missed the point.

People are trying to make sure cops are being held accountable for their actions, including but not limited to the senseless murder of innocent citizens.

---

You want to get rid of the police? Ban firearms in the hands of civilians and anyone owning one after the deadline will have them removed.

You minimize the need for armed response to crime then you minimize the need for police in general. If civilians can't own guns then the only ones who do are automatically criminals.

---

slmcknett posted...

Police are killing people of all colors, it's not about race -- black vs white -- and if you think it is, you've missed the point.

People are trying to make sure cops are being held accountable for their actions, including but not limited to the senseless murder of innocent citizens.

Agree.

Police violence and racism are two separate problems that happen to overlap.

Police reform isn't going to end racism but it's a step in the right direction.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

Ban firearms

This would only trigger the people who are in support of the police. Or if it doesn't, it would confirm they're hypocrites. Which is...extremely likely.

Anyway, that isn't really helpful since cops are shooting at unarmed protesters, as well as random civilians who have nothing to do with the protests. If anyone needs to have their guns taken away, it's the majority of these trigger happy officers.

---

Ryan__Leaf posted...

Not really what "defund" implies so people having the incorrect idea shouldn't be surprising.

If someone thinks defunding means there should be no police, they're probably not able to contribute anything useful to the topic in the first place.

---

slmcknett posted...

Police are killing people of all colors, it's not about race -- black vs white -- and if you think it is, you've missed the point.

People are trying to make sure cops are being held accountable for their actions, including but not limited to the senseless murder of innocent citizens.

I wasn't talking about police killing people...

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Anyone who thinks abolishing the police is a good idea needs their head checked

For disagreeing with BLM, they'll wanna check your head against the pavement, pretty fucking ironic...

---

Hey, I don't like my own idea, I'm just saying criminalization of firearm ownership eliminates the subjectivity of someone being allowed to own a gun, meaning whoever is charged with maintaining order won't have to be armed nearly as often (or at all). I bet a lot of police who get shot upon entering a building were shot by someone who legally had the right to own the weapon they used.

Police only carry guns because they don't know what a civilian might be armed with. If a civilian can legally only be armed with a weapon that can do damage within striking distance, then that reduces the problem by a wide margin.

---

If that happens the first instance of interracial crime would result in an all out war, it'd start in the cities and end in small towns.

---

Balrog0 posted...

I wasn't talking about police killing people...

Yeah, I misread.

Still, I feel like banning firearms in any way wouldn't work as it's a more severe version of the gun restrictions people were talking about years back, where conservatives thought Obama was trying to steal their guns or whatever.

And if that didn't work, when it was just placing restrictions, a total confiscation would never end up happening.

---

I'm reading through Alex Vitale's "End of Policing" right now so I can't say I've got a full grasp on the concept, but as has been brought up, the basic idea is not an abolition of the entire concept of "those who would serve the public trust", but an abolition of "policing" as an act and a social code that we've come to be familiar with.

Also having been brought up, key to this is realizing that we depend on the police for far too much to "fix things" in society.

If you want to read it, too, it's free on Verso Books.

https://www.versobooks.com/

---

So therefore law enforcement as it exists now can't be expected to change how they operate. I have never thought a law enforcement organization was more armed than they needed to be when you look at what sorts of things happen. Patrol officers only carry small caliber handguns and two-handed weapons like shotguns and rifle-caliber weapons are only pulled out when dealing with a hostile who has made known that they intend to fight back against anyone who comes onto them (such as chasing a suspect who has been known to open fire on police).

---

SapphireClassic posted...

For disagreeing with BLM, they'll wanna check your head against the pavement, pretty fucking ironic...

Ironic, because the police actually do that to innocent people.

---

CommonStar posted...

Read this thread and maybe you guys might understand what abolishing the police means, it's not what you think.
https://twitter.com/TravelingNun/status/1268510966116954114

SapphireClassic posted...

For disagreeing with BLM, they'll wanna check your head against the pavement, pretty fucking ironic...

This is not true. BLM is a very peaceful movement.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

I have never thought a law enforcement organization was more armed than they needed to be when you look at what sorts of things happen.

I mean, they've all been decked out in Iron Man armor to deal with the protests this last week. It's pretty excessive.

Though, it's not really about how armed they are (to an extent), it's how they're using the arms. No officer should be shooting rubber bullets into someone's face, or macing children.

---

slmcknett posted...

No one's saying we don't need police at all. People are fighting for police reform.

I wish this was the case, but the only people I see talking about police reform are AmazingLucas and YoungRippa

---

slmcknett posted...

I mean, they've all been decked out in Iron Man armor to deal with the protests this last week. It's pretty excessive.

Though, it's not really about how armed they are (to an extent), it's how they're using the arms. No officer should be shooting rubber bullets into someone's face, or macing children.

Riot gear for dealing with potential rioters? I mean it's kind of militaristic (like what China was doing) by being aggressive towards protestors who haven't yet stepped out of line but showing up ready for a fight is just being prepared of things do go south (of course I feel like the counterpoint I'll get to this is "they're provoking a violent response by appearing that way in the first place").

This debate always boils down to a weird chicken-and-egg problem where you're not sure when you're absolutely resorting to victim-blaming. At some point, yes, someone is getting victimized and they should not be accused of bringing it on themselves but where is that line?

---

I think its funny when the same people talking about ending the police also believe that private citizens shouldnt own firearms. What would I defend myself from armed assailants with? A wiffle ball bat?

---

scorpion41 posted...

I think its funny when the same people talking about ending the police also believe that private citizens shouldnt own firearms. What would I defend myself from armed assailants with? A wiffle ball bat?

And here it fucking is. I play devil's advocate and then I get accused of being an idiot.

I DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT I SAID IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. Can you not actually discern what a hypothetical is? God, fucking CE man.

---

scorpion41 posted...

What would I defend myself from armed assailants with?

Sorry is this something you routinely deal with?

---